...If there is any one publication that cannot be considered a shill of the New World Order
– as more than a few e-mails accused me and/or WND of being – it is the New American, the journal of the John
Birch Society. When I did daily talk radio, I subscribed to the publication because of its reliable, tough-minded reporting.

In checking, I discovered that the New American's gripe with the "inside job" theories was largely the same as mine, namely
that the unfounded theories cheapen the well-founded. As a result, writes William Jasper:

Those of us who responsibly expose and oppose the one-world agenda of the Bush administration (as we did also with the
Clinton administration, without fear or favor) are more easily marginalized as extremists and "conspiracy nuts."

Realizing that people like Kilsheimer might be disbelieved because of his establishment credentials, the New American turned
to retired-Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, U.S. Air Force, one of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts
and a man, who, as the New American relates, "has proven his independence and willingness to challenge cover-ups in the past."

Partin, who lives near the Pentagon, began studying the evidence immediately. "When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high
velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9-11," Partin told the
New American. The near absence of visible evidence on the exterior resulted from the plane's forced entry into the building.
"The aluminum cylinder – the plane fuselage – is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps
penetrating until it is consumed." As to wings, adds Partin, they "have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with
fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."

This same New American piece, "9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction," addresses the various World Trade Center theories, in particular the one offered by Dave vonKleist in his popular video,
"911 In Plane Site." VonKleist, among others, likens the collapse of WTC 1.2 and 7 to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Murrah
Building, which Partin himself believes to have been caused by internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck
bomb.

Partin absolutely rejects any comparison. "The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat
to cause the [WTC] building to collapse are nonsense," said Partin. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people
claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely
impacted the support columns." Every structural engineer that the New American consulted felt the same. ..

9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor (Part I)

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:38:06 -0700

How wild 9/11 conspiracies undermine the left

Editor’s note: The following is the second part of an informal series of articles looking at the
so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. In our first article, Sander Hicks claims that despite its problems, the movement that claims the Bush administration was involved,
or at least knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, is gaining momentum. Here WW4’s Bill Weinberg offers
a blistering attack on the entire enterprise. Weinberg joins Counterpunch’sAlex Cockburn, who himself recently joined the chorus of influential left-wing commentators who have weighed
in on what they claim are unfounded and ultimately self-defeating conspiracy theories.

Here, the author brings up the question of whether the President should have immediately left the classroom after hearing
the news of the second attack. He correctly states my argument that the President did not want to scare the children. However,
he misrepresents it by implying that I believed this was the only reason he did not leave immediately. I actually stated several
possibilities, such as a desire to maintain an image of calm in front of the cameras, or that the President needed a moment
to collect his thoughts. My position on this has always been: So what? If the President had left five, ten, or fifteen minutes
earlier - would it have made any difference? What actions could he have taken that would have prevented loss of life, given
the chaotic nature of events that day? At best, it would have reassured the nation by projecting an image of the President
as a Man of Action (although some would have seen it as a foolhardy, panic-stricken, and insensitive reaction, like George
Kostanza pushing children out of the way to escape a fire). Instead, he projected the image of a man who does not panic in
times of crisis (although some argue that his actions were not aggressive enough). You can't please everyone, even if you
are the President of the United States.

This is Not a Conspiracy Theory response:

George W. Bush himself stated the reason he didn't exit the second-grade classroom upon learning from Andrew Card that
America is under attack.

While Reese can claim it is his argument, that Bush did not leave the room immediately because he didn't want to scare
the children, implying he, Reese came up with that argument, the reason was stated by Bush in an interview. (I'll find
the source in my files, I believe the interview was with the Washington Post in their series a year after 9/11.)

It really doesn't matter what conjectures might be made concerning the reason President Bush did not leave the room (immediately
and after being told by Andrew Card that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center).

The reason was given by President George W. Bush and that answer was "he didn't want to scare the children."

Since that was Bush's answer, the answer raises the scrutiny. (Our speculation about what reasons might be are useless.
Bush already gave his ONLY reason.)

The first and most important determination to be made is this: Was President Bush told any time prior to entering
the second grade classroom (about 9:03 a.m.) (and prior to being told by Card, America is under attack approximately 9:07
a.m.) by anyone in his Administration that a plane or planes had been reported as "hijacked."

The 9/11 Commission Report does not include the full transcript of the President's private testimony before them.
Therefore, the public will never know whether President Bush was even asked whether he was told a plane or planes had been
reported as off-radar, transponders turned off, hijacked, or any other terminology that might be specifically used before
he entered the second-grade classroom to listen to the children practice reading, and more importantly, before he was told
America is under attack, by Andrew Card.

Also, the public should be informed about the September 11, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing given to President Bush reportedly
at 8:00 a.m.

On his return to the Colony, the President showered, changed into a lightweight, dark blue suit, and, still
glowing from the morning's exertion, sat down for the first routine intelligence briefing of the day. It was 8am.

Fourteen hundred miles away, American Airlines Flight 11 was taking off from Boston's Logan International
Airport bound for Los Angeles, with 81 passengers and 11 crew aboard. It would be followed 14 minutes later by the departure,
from the same airport, of United Airlines Flight 175, also LA-bound, with 56 passengers and nine crew.

The President's briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported
throughout the summer, but contained nothing specific, severe or imminent enough to necessitate a call to Condoleezza Rice,
his 47-year-old National Security Adviser who, at the same moment, was travelling through the rush hour traffic from her home
in north-west Washington to her office at the White House.

Since the mainstream Press has not bothered to demand release of the PDB the President was given the morning of September
11, 2001, and since the 9/11 Commission didn't reveal the transcript of the President's testimony we the American public
will never know what President Bush was told at 8 a.m. the morning of September 11, 2001.

The PDB might show nothing of any consequence, but the Press doesn't know what its contents were, yet the Press speculated
The President's briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout
the summer, but contained nothing specific, severe or imminent enough to necessitate a call to Condoleezza Rice.

Further, years ago, This is Not a Conspiracy Theory narrowed down the timeline to 6-mintes between Bush being told by Andrew
Card a second plane crashed into the World Trade Center 9:07 a.m. and the time Bush exited the second grade classroom at about
9:13 a.m.

That timeframe is noted from references contained in my timeline on this site.

We'll leave that matter for now and continue with responding to John Reese.

Reese next poses If the President had left five, ten, or fifteen minutes earlier - would it have made any difference?
What actions could he have taken that would have prevented loss of life, given the chaotic nature of events that day?

The answer in my mind is the reason I continue updating This is Not a Conspiracy Theory five years after I began.

Yes, Bush arising out of his seat after learning that America Was Under Attack and exiting the second grade classroom to
enter an adjacent "holding" room set up with secure phone lines - would have made a difference.

We can speculate about an array of differences, but one is crystal clear:

On September 11, 2001 at approximately 9:07 a.m., the American public would have known absolutely and without doubt
that President Bush recognized he became Commander-in-Chief the instant he was told, "America is under
attack, Mr. President."

The words of Andrew Card to President Bush America is under attack were left unexplained for some 6-minutes while
President Bush remained seated in front of a classroom of schoolchildren.

Instead of thinking of not scaring children reading before him, President Bush should have been demonstrating
he was prepared to make the best attempt ever seen as Commander-in-Chief to thwart an attack on the United States
of America.

President Bush did not demonstrate that he was prepared to take and/or enable to be taken by others all measures possible
to thwart "further" attack on us. He didn't demonstrate that for those approximate 6 minutes he remained in the second-grade
classroom.

Reese poses What actions could he have taken that would have prevented loss of life, given the chaotic
nature of events that day?

Reese does major twisting by posing what actions could he have taken that would have prevented loss of life.

You see, we will never know whether that six minute period could have included actions by the President of the United States
which would have prevented loss of life after the second plane crash.

What we do know in our guts is this: if any one of us had just been told that America is under attack, any one of
us would have felt the imerative need to have this question asked and answered, right now:

Who is attacking the United States of America?

George W. Bush did not ask that question for six minutes.

Truly puzzling is that Bush's answer he didn't want to scare the children rests on his basically leaving the room in a
dramatic way which would scare the children.

But Bush could have quietly arisen from his seat without the children ever becoming scared of a hurried, or dramatic,
or in any way odd, movement.

President Bush could have handled the situation of the unexpected interruption by Andrew Card merely by saying "excuse
me."

Instead, after being told America is under attack, George W. Bush picks up the school textbook (which he had not held prior
to Andrew Card's pronouncement) and does what? According to Bush, he ponders in that time what it means to be
Commander-in-Chief.

He doesn't even ponder how can I save America from possibly further attack from I don't know by what country in the world.
He doesn't do anything for 6-minutes.

And that legacy is unfortunately the legacy George W. Bush himself created when he sat for a 6-minute period instead of
taking his first action, whatever that would be, as Commander-in-Chief.

Bill Sammon called Bush "Dawdler-in-Chief." That from his book entitled, FIGHTING BACK.

What American school children need to know because it is the truth, is George W. Bush, allowed 6 potentially crucial minutes
to pass before he assumed himself in his role as Commander-in-Chief.

That is why This is Not a Conspiracy Theory remains after five years committed to spreading that absolute and incontrovertible
and facutal truth.

Includes video and group photograph

good point Free Press International

Mainstream media reports over and over that Bush remained seated at Booker Elementary School after hearing the 2nd
plane hit the World Trade Center because he didn't want to scare the kids.

President Bush was told the 2nd plane hit
the tower at approximately 9:07 AM and continued reading with the children.

President Bush's next actions are quite
revealing. He holds a 9:30 AM press conference at the school and guess who's there? The kids!

if Bush didn't want to scare the children, that was his reason for not leaving the second grade classroom immediately
after learning America was under attack, then why is he including children when he gives his first response about the
attack on America?

9/11 Revealed? New book repeats false conspiracy theories

The book repeats long-standing rumors of insider trading based on alleged advance warnings of the attack. It ignores
the conclusion in The 9/11 Commission Report that all trades that initially appeared suspicious were found to have
innocuous causes, after an exhaustive investigation.

The book takes the bizarre position that the September 11 attacks were not real terrorist attacks and were somehow designed
to “limit casualties.” Apparently, the largest terrorist event in history was not large enough to convince
the books’ authors that it was real...

It’s official. As of April 1, 2005 I’m an ANTI-conspiracy theorist. This is no joke, and I suggest
you become one too.

What on earth am I talking about?

Think about it: - How much time have you and I wasted reading the rantings of various conspiracy theorists? - Has
any of that time enriched our lives? - Has the world become a better place as a result of our reading or their outbursts,
however well-intentioned? - Are you any more prepared in case some or all of these theories prove accurate? - Can
any of these theories be either proven or disproven?

For those who’ve been at this game for a while, you’ll understand my point, but please bear with me for a moment
of explanation.

The War in Iraq, the coming War in Syria, World War Three - none of these are the real issue. There’s a much
bigger war going on: a spiritual battle for control of your mind. And conspiracy theory sites are unwittingly
aiding the battle, by spreading fear, gloom and a sense of futility, instead of providing practical, meaningful solutions.
And I’m not talking about building log cabins in the wilderness stockpiled with long-life foods, or emigrating to the
wilds of Borneo.

There’s a grand plan unfolding, and conspiracy theory sites (those worth their salt) know there’s absolutely
nothing that can be done, but still seem satisfied with believing they’re smart enough to have “it all figured
out”.

Why do you think conspiracy sites are permitted to continue operating? If they’re a threat, wouldn’t
they all be shut down? Truth is, conspiracy sites are aiding and abetting the grand plan, by enslaving people’s
minds through fear.

My suggestion?

Drastically reduce the amount of time you spend assimilating “news”, from either traditional or alternative
sources.

Radical, I know. And I say this because, for most of us, NONE of the news reported affects us personally. Not
Annan’s imminent departure from the UN; not the latest earthquake in SE Asia; not school shootings; not events in Israel
and Palestine; not the battle going on for Schiavo’s life and the related court rulings; not the rapidly-fading pope
and the significance of who will be next. If they don’t affect us personally, why worry about these stories?

Instead, spend time coming to grips with the bigger picture: - World events, both politically and geo-physically, particularly
in the next few years, are going to become cause for more and more alarm. The individual events themselves matter little
- what matters is the trend, or the unfolding grand plan. Once you’ve understood the grand plan (which you cannot
do while worrying about individual events) you’ll be able to live in peace because your mind is prepared mentally;

So with the clear knowledge that three planes had been hijacked,
with one of them already crashed into the World Trade Center, who would have possibly assumed that Flight 11's crash was an
accident? Yet that is precisely what the official story claims.

There are a number of different "official" accounts, but all of them
stress that Bush wasn't told until after he arrived inside the school (contrary to the account of Captain Loewer) and that
it was assumed to be an accident (contradicting Tenet being told that it was an attack).

...Conspiracy theories are similar to pseudoscience in a number of respects.
The same sort of logical fallacies are often found in each, from ad hominem attacks to circular reasoning. Occam's
razor has no place in a conspiracy theory. The more unnecessary entities are added to an explanation, the more it affirms
the theorist's belief that a massive, complex conspiracy exists.

In addition, conspiracy theories are almost by definition unfalsifiable. Any evidence
against the theory is dismissed, because, as far as the conspiracy buff is concerned, the conspirators planted the evidence.
A classic example is the hype surrounding the supposed "UFO Crash" at Roswell. It doesn't matter that newly unclassified documents
reveal that the incident had a perfectly logical, terrestrial explanation. UFOlogists want to believe in a conspiracy to hide
evidence of alien life, so they dismiss the evidence as part of a government cover-up.

Whenever a significant event occurs, there are conspiracy nuts coming out of the
woodwork to explain to us what really happened. This is the case with an article written by Allan Wood and Paul Thompson,
called "An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11". It appears on the website for the "Center for
Cooperative Research" which, as far as I can tell (the page describing the purpose of the site is extremely evasive), is an
alternative news source. The central thrust of this article is that President Bush's actions were unusual and inappropriate
for circumstances surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. It states that investigations are needed to explain certain
irregularities, implying that a bizarre conspiracy of silence was in place that day.

Although this article is clearly well researched and contains links to its sources,
it is at its core a journalistic train wreck. Many of the reference links are broken, point to dubious web sites, or refer
to articles that simply do not support the statements made. Numerous attempts are made to mislead and confuse the reader,
while maintaining a veneer of accuracy and professionalism. In my opinion, the twisted logic of this article trivializes one
of the most traumatic incidents in our nation's history. In the paragraphs that follow I will attempt to work through the
baffling mish-mash of ideas that comprise the work.

The authors try to create the impression that the President was totally unaffected
by the news he had heard and was wasting a great deal of precious time. The sources linked to the article tell a different
story. Bush's demeanor changed almost immediately, and he was clearly preoccupied. The teacher, in fact, described his departure
as sudden: "whoosh, he was gone!"

"Who was really in control? Certainly not Bush."

Actually, Bush was firmly in control. It was his decision to wrap up his public appearance
gracefully in order to avoid a panic (or to avoid the perception among the press that he was panicking). The fact that
Card gave Bush the news briefly and immediately withdrew demonstrates that he was leaving the next move up to his President,
and appropriately so.

"In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer caught Bush's
eye and held up a pad of paper for him to see, with "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" written on it in big block letters. [Washington
Times, 10/7/02]"

Ari Fleischer was doing his job as Press Secretary.
So? There is a reason that the President keeps a press-savvy person nearby in such situations. Of course he is going
to advise the President at such a critical moment. That's what he was there for.

...

"Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom
after being told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily
Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in
the classroom suggests he stayed longer than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room,
so it also doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or nine minutes" - sometime
between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02]"

"9:12 AM" is an exact time and it is obtained from three independent sources. "Eight or nine minutes" is a ballpark
figure from a single source. It is puzzling that the authors find the latter more credible. ...

Much like the time when Bush left the Booker classroom, the time when fighters
finally reached Air Force One is rarely mentioned, and when it is, the facts are highly debatable. According to one account,
around 10:00 a.m. Air Force One was "joined by an escort of F-16 fighters from a base near Jacksonville, Florida." [Telegraph,
12/16/01] But one month later, it was reported that in Cheney's 10:32 phone call, he told Bush that it would take another
40 to 90 minutes [as late as noon] to get protective fighters up to escort Air Force One. [Washington Post, 1/27/02]"The
latter account, it would seem, is the one favored by the authors. However, this article (from the Washington Post) also says
that Air Force One was en route to Washington at this time, contrary to the authors' assertion that it was simply going in
circles. This shows the folly of picking and choosing quotes out of context to support one's arguments.

A discernable pattern emerges upon reading through the sources provided in the
article. The authors begin with a premise, then look for snippets of news stories to support it. If the stories are read in
their entirety, they tend to contradict some of the contentions made by the authors in other parts of the article.

"Air Force One landed at Barksdale Air Force base near Shreveport,
Louisiana at about 11:45 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] "The official reason for landing
at Barksdale was that Bush felt it necessary to make a further statement, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that - as there
was no agreement as to what the President's movements should be it was felt he might as well be on the ground as in the air."
[Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] Ironically, the landing came only a short time after Bush's plane was finally protected
by fighters."

The authors, of course, do not know when fighter
protection arrived for Air Force One. There were several conflicting reports, but the authors arbitrarily chose one that supported
their beliefs.

"The many accounts of what happened to Bush on 9/11 are riddled with
disinformation of false threats, omitted details, fudged timing, and more. But around September 11, 2002, the heavily publicized
first anniversary of the attacks, there was an obvious attempt to further rewrite the story.

Chief of Staff Andrew Card claimed that after he told Bush about the second World
Trade Center crash, "it was only a matter of seconds" before Bush "excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the
students, and he left" the classroom…The Booker school video shows these statements are lies - unless "a matter of seconds"
means over 700 seconds!"

Certainly, it can mean 700 seconds.
If so, then this is simply a politically motivated exaggeration about an insignificant detail in the day's events. If not,
then Card simply misremembered it.

"Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush
visited on 9/11, told the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left. "He said,
'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him.
He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate
in the lesson." [Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow along after being
told of the second plane."

Perhaps the authors are suggesting
that Ms. Daniels is in on a conspiracy to amend history over trivial details. I believe it is simply a distortion of memory
that is typical of most people a year after the fact. Studies have shown that memories of significant events, although not
forgotten, can become greatly distorted over time, even though the person's confidence in their memory remains strong [http://www.memory-key.com/ResearchReports/tversky2000.htm].

In their conclusion, the authors make a brave attempt to solidify the hodge-podge
of data with which they have assailed their readers:

"There are many questions that deserve answers. So many pieces of the
puzzle do not fit. Simply by reading the mainstream media reports, we can see that mere incompetence doesn't explain what
happened to Bush on that day. For instance, it makes no sense that Bush would listen to a story about a goat long after being
told the US was under attack, and even after the Secret Service decided to immediately evacuate him from the school. It defies
explanation that Air Force One's fighter escort took two hours to appear. And it is mind-boggling that there are seven different
versions of how Bush learned about the first crash."

I would
suspect that some minds are more easily boggled than others. Be that as it may, if incompetence does not explain the events
that the authors find so baffling, what does? The authors are not forthcoming with that information.

Son of "An Interesting Day" Conspiracy Theory in Disguise By John Reese

A few months ago, I penned an article on conspiracy theorists in general, and Allan
Wood and Paul Thompson in particular. I used Wood's and Thompson's article about the September 11th attacks, An Interesting
Day, to illustrate the hazards of taking conspiracy theorists at face value, particularly when their alarmist writings
are carefully crafted to appear professional and well researched. Such writings are dangerous because they not only spread
misinformation (or outright lies), but they train readers to accept what information they take in without applying critical
thought.

Besides articulate writing, ample references, and flashy graphics, conspiracy theorists
(or any other type of extremist, for that matter) sometimes employ an even more insidious tool of the trade: to find a fellow
extremist even crazier than they are, then attempt to portray themselves as being moderate by comparison. By distancing themselves
from the true wackos, they send a message to the world that says: "See how reasonable I am? Doesn't this prove that what I
have to say is legitimate and worthwhile?"

They can say this all they want. It doesn't make it true.

Critical thinking is blind to the relative insanity of the logical fallacies under
scrutiny. The rules of reason and logic do not grade on a curve. They are absolutes, and everyone, no matter how important,
well educated, or well spoken, is subject to them. Misinformation from a learned authority is still misinformation. A cleverly
worded non-sequitur is still a non-sequitur. A preconceived notion is still a preconceived notion. And no matter how effectively
a straw man argument is refuted, it is still a straw man.

All this brings us to Mike Ward, a columnist for PopMatters and (as we shall see)
a conspiracy theorist in sheep's clothing. His article, Coincidence Theory, is far better written and, on the surface,
more balanced than An Interesting Day. In the article, he critiques both my article from SkepticReport and the original article by Wood and Thompson. Employing the "crafty moderate" technique,
Ward attacks An Interesting Day for its reliance on ad hominem attacks, although he confesses to sharing the same acrimony
towards the Bush administration. At the same time, he represents my article as the opposite extreme, a sort of Bush love-fest
that naively assumes the "inherent nobility" of the President and his administration. In the middle he puts Mindy Kleinberg,
the widow of a September 11th victim, as a neutral (!?!) commentator with keen insights into the reality of the events of
that day.

Does Ward's analysis have merit, or is he just another conspiracy theorist? To
answer this question, let's review some of the tricks of the trade often employed when shoveling this particular type of manure:
...

Barkun: When a becomes a label for denigrating a point of view someone disagrees with it becomes meaningless and useless...

Caller mentions New World Order

Barkun: hard to think of conspiracy theory that mentions New World Order that doesn't use United Nations.

Barkun: does a lot of web surfing. Lamb: how does the system knock them down? Barkun: the more sweeping, the harder it
is to disprove. Some are non-falsifiable. If you present the evidence it is false, the believer will say the conspirators
have falsified the evidence... Lamb asks caller what do you think the NWO is.

Caller: ... in order to bring this about you have to take everyone's gun away. lamb: Has there been any evidence that
a UFO has landed with little people on it. Barkun: not that I know of...

Lamb: Area 51? Barkun: lots of conspiracies about that, another location Dulcy (sp) New Mexico, near Colorado border...
argues there is an underground laboratory there that is a cooperative venture between government and extraterrestials (sp).

Barkun: urban legends achieve a kind of credibility depending on how many times it is repeated...

Barkun: lot of people who believe in conspiracy theories also believe in stigmatized knowledge... many believers
may have views about UFOs stories about Atlantis, unorthodox medical theories cryptozoology...

Conspirannoyya: Yep, that is the heart of it, paint all of us with that same brush. That alone discredits the legitimate
people seeking truth.

Caller: Address Carrol Quigley books The Anglo American and another about the conspiratorial history of US

Barkun: there is a semi-scholarly conspiracy theory, pays attention to normal canons of proof. Ont he othe hand the response
to it has been a good deal of skepticism.

Caller: Pearl Harbor

Barkun: event conspiracies, explain events that otherwise appear inexplicable or can't simply be assigned to human folly
or accident because it is psychologically disturbing, how could this happen without the advance knowledge... like conspiracies
that grow in the wake of 9/11 we don't believe this kind of thing happened, it's comforting to believe someone let it happen,
that someone is in control.

Conspirannoyya: Yep see those of us who question anything about 9/11 just want comfort.

Caller: look at Haliburton, it's a conflict of interest for him to be in that, he's a multi-millionairre, a gazzilionairre.

Conspirannoyya: Well, so what he's a millionairre many times over, what do you expect, Bush to pick somebody unknown
from your hometown. Remember Hillary Clinton made a bundle on futures trading, nobody blinked at that.

Caller: remote association

Barkun: in a world where a lot of things are going on that we don't quite understand it's comforting to believe there
is someone out there pulling the strings.